Lies of Omission

Rent Lies of Omission

Sunday, November 29, 2015

It boggles the rational mind that so many could be so dedicated to nothing other than the preservation of the nation, of the rights of individuals and the respect for human life and be denigrated so thoroughly by those who call themselves humanitarians.

This is the trouble I have with liberals. There is no substance behind their professions of compassion. And it doesn't take much of a peek behind the curtain to see their true ambitions. They openly celebrate and even honor despicable people such as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, an obvious and emphatic racist. They continue to give the Margaret Sanger Award to their most productive child destructionist and parts salesperson of the year with no shame.

They have injected into the American mindset the concepts of communism so thoroughly, some of it sounds American, because it incorporates Christian values of charity. The weakness in America is largely due to its Christian ethos, where all baser instincts towards dealing with the dismantling of a once great culture are smothered by decency. So, we stand by, watching the life-blood of our nation spill out over the continent, while we comport to the values of the Bible.

Even when our Christian faith is assaulted, our belief belittled by the masters of the media and our own government, we stand by. Now, as the Muslim faith is brought among us, built up in specific areas where Sharia Law is given precedent over our laws and our Constitution, there is only the whimper of Christian prayers.

Here again the liberals define themselves with irrational contradiction. As liberal politicians and citizens alike cry for the free importation of Syrian refugees and the voting block grows increasingly Muslim, all advocacy for women's rights seem like so much of liberal activism, which is only intended to tear down the Christian culture, but has no intention of replacing it with something valuable. Sharia Law and feminism are contradictions, they are diametrically opposed. The liberal intent appears to be to use feminism to destroy the Christian value of a generally paternal society and replace it with a Muslim value of paternal absolutism. If one has not spent time in a Muslim nation (as I have) they might not understand the degree of female subjugation that "paternal absolutism" suggests.

The only rational outcome of their support is the eradication of feminism and this support is led by avowed feminists. And, were this the only example of aims opposed to goals, it might be dismissed as an aberration, but it is infused in everything a liberal does. They use Global Warming as a club against coal companies that produce electricity and at the same time encourage the increased use of electric cars, further taxing an electric grid that teeters on collapse. On and on it goes, on every issue.

Their blind devotion to their masters lead them to defend the indefensible as a means of countering public opinion. Their leaders understand that public demonstrations, cheered on by a compromised press corps, can lead to the alteration of the American culture, a bending toward the Marxist model. They don't ask if the world being constructed around them is better than the old, or even to their benefit, only that it is asked of them and they comply. Because of this they have been largely successful in the destruction of the American culture. The majority have not yet thought rationally about what will replace it. They are fed promises of equality and harmony while they sow seeds of hatred and destruction, perhaps even genocide. Their masters know well what they are building and have not the humility or compassion to care.

That is not what is asked of those in this community of liberty, it goes against all that we believe. We take strength in our ability to confront lies and deception; to think for ourselves and arrive at the truth. When the smoke clears from the devastation, these are the strengths we will need to do what we must to restore the values that made this nation great with moral clarity.

Friday, November 27, 2015

I don't pretend to know the specifics, but I know Wirecutter and if he has been hit with a specious lawsuit and/or complaints, I will support him. I would suggest visiting his site and this one to help out, if you have the funds.

No, I am not interested in the circular firing squad of this Patriot/Liberty/III community. The biggest disappointment I have experienced has been with these internecine squabbles, but when lawsuits are filed and legal representation is required, I believe in helping out.

I will tell you all that Wirecutter is a good man and I don't believe he is guilty of anything.

But, this goes much deeper than just that. This is indicative of this community. There are those who will not help others, because they disagree with them. There are those who hold grudges to the detriment of the whole community. There are those whose hatred debilitates the efforts of everyone else. It angers me, because we neuter ourselves with these petty, egotistical tantrums.

Mostly, I hate it because it demonstrates to our enemies that we are weak and immature as an organization and that sets us back a decade.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

For conversation and thought. I have long been concerned about the direction, purpose and outcome of the liberty/patriot movement. We prep, we put up stores, we purchase guns and ammo, we, theoretically, walk our AOs and locate assets, people and articles that might be of use when local, state and federal government agencies inevitably fail, or are unprepared for the next crisis, or are likely complicit in that crisis.

We are still people with lives and families and investments to protect. Here is where I ask the reader to take a step back, to realize that the initial frontiersmen, those who came to America in wooden boats, to people who crossed through the Cumberland Gap, to people who settled out West knew the price of survival . There were no government services for a good period of time, no police, no fire department, no water works, no sewer. They had nothing, but what they brought with them or built on site. And, when these services fail, for whatever reason, it will be up to the true "adults" in this nation to provide for ourselves and yes, for others. It is the Christian thing to do.

So, these will be America's "dark ages," the days of chaos. This is what we all work to survive, this is why we build tribes and make cooperative defense agreements. To survive it, to make it through the difficult times when all sorts of realities long understood and embraced by our forbears become the new normal for us.

It is easy to be kind when kindness is not met with a brutal and inhumane response. Yes, help those in need, sick, injured or destitute, but within reason, without jeopardizing your security. Beware of those who are complicit in your situation as well as theirs. Be sure to help, where that help is appreciated and hopefully returned, but not where it is coerced, or demanded. These are tough decisions and tough actions, but those capable of them will be the survivors.

Face it, there will be those families, hungry, thirsty and in need of shelter who have not prepared when they had a chance; who were led by a man convinced that the largess would never end; who believed in the myth of benevolent government. They have not prepped, but they know well that you did and they want what you have.

If you are savvy and you made it through those dark times, when you have had to say no and back up the statement with force of arms, who now stand in a nation thrown into chaos and hear that they are working on another Constitution in the capitol, you have to ask yourself "who is working on it?" Is it you? Probably not, because while you were defending yourself, protecting yours and aiding those who have aided you over the past several months or years the others have been scheming to take advantage of the chaos to pursue their long-held goals of total control.

Those busily scheming were the ones who lived off of other people's efforts while they eliminated competing viewpoints until they were confident that they might develop their new Constitution with the assurance that there will be no dissent. Do you then let this process take place? And if not, what would you present as your demands and what would you be willing to do to ensure that those demands were met?

As important as survival is, it must have a purpose. To survive only to awaken to horrors greater than those that created the chaos in the first place is unacceptable. There will be that struggle as well, the struggle for who we are as we go forward. On what precepts will we build the new society? Because a new society will be built upon the ashes of the old, one way or the other.

If this loose community will mean anything, in the end, it will be how well we represent ourselves when they try to build something totally abhorrent to Western culture on the ashes of the fire ignited by collectivists. America, for all of its failures and excesses, once understood that a free people will naturally build, improve and innovate. Those efforts, whether intentional or not, inevitably produce
an advanced, educated and productive society.

When the rulers recognized themselves as "rulers" they tried to make that dynamic engine of commerce subservient to the Socialist model, to coerce industry to divided goals, to establish themselves as the gatekeepers to wealth, we, as a people, as a society, began to devolve. We went backward, poverty soared, debt multiplied and all to achieve what had already been achieved.

Now, as it is, everything society needs cannot be met because the gatekeepers choose who is aided and who is debilitated. Our advancements are not forthcoming. We cannot build the refineries we desperately need, we cannot build commonsense power plants, but instead waste funds on inefficient and largely useless power generation sources the gatekeepers have selected, that do nothing other than perpetuate the myth of "social consciousness." For some, this is a legitimate concern, for far more it is a pathway to that "gatekeeper" status that cements all power in their hands and they are dedicated to it.

They are saboteurs and we cannot allow them to win. The only way to prevent them from achieving their goal of absolute power over this great nation and its people, is to have a plan, a strategy to emerge from the chaos with demands for the rights that allow for that freedom to create and innovate. Anything less is a loss, not just to you and yours, but to the world. Without the shining light of liberty the world is a dark and miserable place.

Be the adult, be the light, be the voice. This is a multi-level battlefield and everything is on the line. The survivors must decide who we will be.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

In a recent communication sent to many of the supporters of the Bundy family there is news of the Hammond Family and their struggles against an abusive and dangerous government. The Hammond story is not unique. Many ranchers with lands near a National Park, a Wildlife Refuge or any federal government land, such as the Bundy Ranch, have experienced brutal treatment at the hands of the federal government.

This is how the agents, supported by tax dollars, treat citizens in the way of their ever-expanding land grab. It happened in the 1970's with regularity and it is a favorite tool of federal bureaucrats today, who are not subject to elections and who are insulated from prosecution, because who would arrest them? A federal agent of another bureaucracy?

I first wrote an article about just this sort of thing in the 1990's and submitted it for publication to National Review, who accepted the article, but by then the National Park Service had settled with the subject of the article and I killed it before it was published.

But, the only way to deal with federal cockroaches is to shine a light on them. Their actions are so abhorrent to the average citizen and their excesses so brutal that they cannot stand the light of day. I do not personally know either the Bundy family or the Hammonds, but this is so commonplace out here in the West that none of their tactics are even surprising. It is the way they get what they want, but it illustrates one thing very clearly: they are a gang and willingly use gangland tactics to get what they want.

Watch any good movie like "Goodfellas" or "Hoffa" to see how it is done, that's where they learned it. It is a protection racket and when the poor shopkeeper (rancher) does not pay protection, they burn the place down or in this case make it uninhabitable for some other reason.

By the way, the Sheriff responsible for keeping these citizens safe from the gang that is threatening these good people can be contacted here:

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

It is not often that a leftist liberal reveals their true feelings, which are typically held in check by the cocoon of deception they are most comfortable with, so it was startling to hear Barack Obama denigrate women with such openness. In a response to a question concerning the debate as to whether the United States should allow Syrian refugees into the country, Barack Obama mocked Republicans by stating that they were afraid of widows and orphans. He said: "Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America..."

Of course, it is Barack Obama's deceptive nature to portray the Syrian refugees as widows and orphans, though 76 percent of the refugees are young, military-age single men, or about 97 percent of all jihadists across the globe. But, in his effort to portray Republicans as scared little children themselves, he unwittingly admitted that he did not consider women capable of the sort of organization and dedication it would take to pull off an organized attack.

To Barack Obama, women are meek, incompetent rubes. They are defenseless and incapable of providing for their own, but are in need of government coddling, assistance and direction. While he considers men a concern in the battle for Islamic supremacy, he sees no threat from women at all.

This is one reason not to trust Barack Obama with the security of the nation. He is incapable, or worse, complicit in the dangers presented by the vast majority of male, military-aged Syrian refugees, but is likewise incapable of seeing women as a threat. This is particularly startling since the second wave of terrorist activity in France was thwarted by a tip to local authorities where they encountered a female suicide bomber, who detonated her bomb during the raid.

This woman, who would not have been considered even a slight threat due to her gender by Barack Obama, detonated a bomb while being investigated. In Barack Obama's America, she never would have been tracked, never would have been questioned, never would have been suspected and had she been suspected, those insinuations would have been disregarded because she is a useless, weak, ineffective and incompetent woman.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

The Obama Administration tells us that they have a "robust" vetting system for Syrian refugees. The problem with that is that the Obama Administration said that the average person would save $2,500 by the implementation of Obamacare; it said that the Stimulus program would restart the economy; it said that ISIS was a Junior Varsity (JV) type terrorist organization; it said that ISIS was "contained." So, excuse me if I am wary of its statements on a "robust" vetting system. But, if so, why not tell us what that is? Run it down for us and please be specific.

The real question I have is why the Obama Administration seems intent on bringing Syrian refugees, many of whom are jihadists, into the United States while at the same time is deporting Christian refugees from Iraq and the clutches of ISIS? Are these not the same refugees fleeing the same dangers, the difference being only whether they are Christians or Muslims? And, if he is a Christian, as he claims, why does he always defer to Muslims in any instance of choice?

I am not going to pretend to know anything about Barack Obama. I have not researched his lineage, or his religion, or his childhood. It has long been moot. I recognized that we wanted a black president for all sorts of reasons. Obviously the black population wanted someone like them in office. Okay, I want someone like me in office, too, only I don't consider just being white as being like me. There are lots of white people and black people I don't want in the office of the President of the United States and there are very few who I do want in that office.

The main criteria for any president should be a love of country and through that love an undying determination to protect it and the citizens of it. Objectively, does that sound like a description of Barack Obama? Barack Obama is, and by his own proud admission, not that sort of president. I think he would gladly point out America's flaws as he sees them and as proudly point out his efforts to "correct" those flaws.

The first flaw that Obama recognizes is that this is a predominately white nation. He would like to correct that, first with opening the southern borders while at the same time enforcing the northern border. What is the difference? It is the difference between Christian refugees from ISIS and Syrian refugees from ISIS. The Syrian refugees are even better than Hispanic border jumpers, because they are both non-white and Islamic. That they are infused with Jihadists just makes his vision better as they would naturally attack whites or Christians in their terrorist attacks. Even better, he could stand on his podium and condemn the acts of violence while he has done everything he could, as president, to make them possible. We have already seen examples of this where illegal immigrants have committed horrendous crimes against the citizens of America with the encouragement of silence from the president and the continuation of the policies that have enabled them.

This is the administration we are expected to believe has a "robust" vetting system for Syrian refugees.

Knowing that I will be accused of hating Barack Obama and that is the source of my criticism, I will just say that I don't hate Barack Obama. To hate Barack Obama is to hate those who put him in office, which is a very good portion of the citizens of my nation. It is not his fault that the electorate put him in office twice. It is not his fault that he "fundamentally transformed America" as he promised to do. It is not his fault that the citizens of the United States elected a man who clearly had a past they all knew about, who had beliefs they all shared. How can I hate a man for being who he is and that the electorate of the United States elected twice? What would be the point of that hatred?

I don't even hate those who put Barack Obama in office. It was their support, or guilt, or "feelings" or hopes that made them vote the way they did. That I whole-heartedly disagree with them and their purposes does not make me hate them. It is a struggle, this idea of liberty and self-governance, that cannot be won by hatred and force. Unlike the leftists that have given up on the idea of liberty and self-governance and have resorted to hatred and force to accomplish their goals, I continue to hold onto the idea of making convincing arguments that avoid the confrontation.

Having been given their choice of presidents, Barack Obama, and the cooperation of the House and Senate for a time, we now have the America they wanted. Even with Republican control of the House and Senate, Barack Obama has been supported and enabled so nothing much has changed with that realignment.

So, this is it, this is "their" America. It is much more racially divided; it is much more dangerous; it is much more bankrupt; it is weaker internationally, both militarily and economically; it is much poorer on an individual basis; it is much less "free" with the NSA recording phone calls and reading emails. But, they will never recognize any of it, because they are not rational, these leftist supporters of Barack Obama. Their hatred for what America was overwhelms their ability to see the truth.

Okay, I understand that as well. There are political delusions on all sides, including mine. Even when this nation is thrown into chaos as a direct result of the economic and political policies of Barack Obama and those who support him, they will not see it. They will find it is all the fault of people like me, who lust for liberty and a sense of legal restraint of the government.

The question is what will they do about it? My guess is they will resort to hatred and force as they have so far and that will put me in the place of having to engage their hatred and force with hatred and force. I would much rather simply be left alone to live my life, but if it is their intent to import hatred and force into my neighborhood, that pretty much writes the script for the rest of my life, doesn't it?

Thursday, November 12, 2015

First, a sense that one race is responsible for all of society's ills and deserve whatever punishment is meted out by government forces. Second, a serious propaganda effort especially a sycophantic press that encourages the violation of individual rights. Third, a corruption of "science" that enables government officials to make outlandish claims requiring government action. Fourth, a means of confiscating property through seemingly legitimate means. Fifth, police agencies divorced from the concept of public service and infused with a "superior force" mentality. Sixth, the subjugation of religion. Seventh, the de-legitimization of traditional political roles and limitations.
There is no question that each and every one of these requirements have taken place in the United States over the past several decades and that the implementation of them have accelerated in the past few years.

The image of society in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union included the sense of being watched at all times; of being careful what one said in public for fear of being punished; of being harassed by police and questioned for political opinions; of being attacked in the night by security forces.

How, exactly is the feeling any different in the United States in the past few years? Maybe the East German Stasi is not the inquisitor, but the IRS has made a suitable substitution.
So, what were all of those wars for? What have our fighting men given their lives to secure? Are they not, at this point, all in vain? We celebrate our veterans on Veteran's Day as if we appreciate their sacrifice, but go to work the next day implementing everything they fought to prevent. We endure exactly the society they pledged to defeat.

Tyranny is a vague and outdated term. It has lost its definition, because though it presents itself in the U.S. every day and with more vigor than the day before, it is not recognized as such. Because tyranny is something only other people endure. But, the point is, we have become the "other people" because we have accepted the actions of the government that have allowed constant spying on the people, sorting through their e-mails and phone calls for fear of what? For fear that some enemy will take our freedom?

All efforts to point out the dangers of a government given free access to all private communication, all private thoughts and private funds have been met with great resistance from a media openly hostile to that message. The whistleblowers have been labeled dangerous nuts. They have been vilified as racists and backward religionists. At the same time the media expounds the virtue of diversity, they rule out hearing messages that are different from theirs, or as one might say: diverse. They have only one interest and that is the increasing power of government. They ignore the excesses of government harassment against citizens, because they believe that a leftist government is infallible. It is their mantra as it was in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

We have all the building blocks for a new genocide. The excuses are already built into the media's narrative. The alarm has been raised and effectively silenced. So, what is to stop the U.S. Government from becoming the next genocidal machine? The courts? The police? The military? The Republicans? Do you see now how ridiculous any of those limitations seem?

Without giving credence to the alarmists, the nation will continue to sleep and perhaps some will never again wake.

Monday, November 9, 2015

The phenomenon of self-destruction of the United States continues apace, but this is not normal, it is not the same as societal upheaval. Societal upheaval is fairly common; it is always accompanied by technological advancements. From Greece and Egypt to the United States, whatever technology advances a society ultimately rips it apart. It is somewhat of a maturation.

Societal upheaval is inevitable. It has happened several times in the United States as technology progressed. A good example of this exists in the transformation of farming. Technology turned farming from a labor-intensive occupation to an equipment-intensive industry. This development was accompanied by the societal upheaval of the abolition of slavery, the repercussions of which continue today.

A farm big enough to be successful in the pre-industrial revolution required manual labor at the lowest cost to production. This is not a statement of conscience, it is a simple economic fact that enabled slavery. To abolish slavery was to destroy the South's primary source of economic strength, farming plantations, and it is why this was not a decision of conscience for most of those who engaged in slavery, it was a system necessary to their survival.

Unlike the societal upheaval of the abolition of slavery, the current phenomenon of self-destruction is, to a large degree, schizophrenic.

Government officials are engaged in more than self-serving power grabs and domination over the people, they are actively seeking the destruction of their own legitimacy, as if to force a confrontation with...themselves.

This effort is enabled and even cheered on by a media openly hostile to the concept of freedom of the press. Their willingness to limit and even regulate the media in order to ensure the monopoly of message is, frankly, startling.

Self-hatred seems to be the order of the day; the common motivating factor society-wide. The Christian church has turned on itself, openly rejecting principles hard-wired into their formation. They reject concepts of freedom of religion. They seek persecution as a means of self-flagellation for some perceived sin of defending Christian values.

The military has given up the concept of superior firepower and readiness, opting instead for social experimentation at the risk of national defense. National defense is no longer their mandate. They are unwilling to identify enemies, preferring to ensure that all members of society are welcome within their ranks including and especially elements dedicated to the destruction of the military.

There is not one traditional pillar of society that is not engaged in some form of self-destruction. They have all turned on their own stated principles in search of acceptance by some equally schizophrenic element of this emerging society.

If all of this were to no consequence it would simply be curious, like the "free love" movement of the 1960's, but it does have consequences. A church unable to teach and respect the word of God, has rendered itself useless. A media unwilling to tell the truth in the face of power is useless. A military more focused on internal demons rather than external enemies is useless.

In the end, enemies both societal and military who are unidentified as enemies are left to grow stronger and more formidable, perhaps they grow strong enough to become indomitable. Our sources of strength, once embroiled in self-destruction to the point that they are unable to protect the society they were created to defend, become enemies themselves.

As is typical, when the sane are surrounded by the insane, insanity is normal and the sane are hunted down as dangerously insane. They are replaced in society by immigrants as hostile to the American tradition as the schizophrenic powers that encouraged the immigration.

The fact is, if you believe in the Constitution, the Church, or the strength of the military you are considered insane. If you believe in the courts or the media as defenders of your freedom, you are insane. If you are actively engaged in the destruction of any or all of these institutions of American strength, congratulations, you are considered sane in this schizophrenic society.

Today, we are a confused nation, a conflicted people undedicated to the core principles of the homeland and therefore ripe for conquest.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Travis Gettys begins his story with the title: Anti-Muslim militia warns against refugee invasion at Idaho statehouse. I say "story" because that is what it is, a story, not an article or any sort of honest reporting. It is a liberal shock story, replete with as many inaccuracies and conspiracy theories as it can pack between the lines. The title itself states that these are Anti-Muslims, unless the author suggests that all Muslims are Jihadists, the title intentionally misidentifies the purpose of the protest. The protestors were not militia, they were III Percenters. Militias are self-identified as such and make no apologies for their organizations. III Percenters might be of similar politics or ideology, but they are not militias.
The protestors were concerned with Jihadists being relocated into their communities, a consequence of misguided government, or worse, malevolent government action with the intent to stir civil unrest, the logical outcome being the perceived need for more government.

To Travis Gettys and RawStory, who apparently take their marching orders from Hatewatch, an outgrowth of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the III Percenters are not citizens interested in the integrity of US Immigration law, or the safety of their community threatened by imported Jihadists. They are described as: "about 100 anti-government activists, many wearing flak jackets and other armor, waved American flags and banners promoting their pro-gun militia group"

This despite the fact that it is commonly known that Syrian refugees are infused with a certain percentage of Jihadists. There are stories, even from mainstream news outlets, that have documented the inability of the government to completely vet those who arrive from Syria and that some extremists might be among the refugees being resettled across the nation.

Later in the story, Travis gets in another inaccurate insinuation against as many imagined enemies as he can when he writes: The III% movement was co-founded by pro-gun, anti-government activist Mike Vanderboegh, who promotes the idea that the Second Amendment allows unsatisfactory election results to be overturned by armed revolt.

First, the III Percent movement might have been co-founded by Mike Vanderboegh, I don't know, but I do know that there is no III Percent national organization to which every III Percenter looks to for guidance from Mike Vanderboegh, or anyone else. That Travis injects Vanderboegh into the issue is for one purpose only, in his mind anyway, to discredit and somehow link III Percent Idaho with SPLC's greatest boogieman, Vanderboegh. To push the point as far as he can Travis writes: group members take pains to describe themselves as a mainstream conservative group — although their rhetoric frequently overlaps with other far-right “patriot” groups and even white supremacist groups.

He just had to get that shot in about "white supremacists," because anyone who cares about the direction of the nation, or the Constitutional integrity of the government must be a "white supremacist." In the same way, Travis makes it quite clear that anyone who is concerned about the 300 Syrian refugees being settled in Idaho must be Anti-Muslim, because the accurate portrayal of the protest as a protest against the release of these refugees because the government has admitted that it CANNOT properly vet these refugees to ensure that no Islamic extremist jihadists are released into their communities, would just not fit the narrative, would it?

The one thing Travis Gettys does not bother to illuminate for the reader is the obvious irony of his narrative where he describes the III Percenters as "anti-government" activists who wave American flags and threaten violence over violations of the Constitution. How does that work, Travis? I mean, even in your own mind. Unless you have already recognized that the government is disengaged from the value of the American flag and the legitimacy of the Constitution.

This is the trouble with the media, and I do not for a moment consider Travis Gettys a journalist or a member of the media, but he does represent the private views of those in the media. They cannot disengage themselves from their views when they report. They cannot see the III Percent movement for what it is. It is a red flag among the populace that there is something wrong with the government. Instead, they see their own private boogiemen and try desperately to link anyone they disagree with, with them.

Mike Vanderboegh is just such a boogieman and has long been a thorn in SPLC's side, because he has not backed down from their harassment and vilification, but has stood up to Morris Dees, a sin that must not go unpunished. The fact that the media cannot see that SPLC is as much a hate group and leftists extremists themselves tells everything about their point of view. I have never been in contact with Mike Vanderboegh, but I respect him and have helped him to expose the Gunwalker Scandal now referred to as Fast and Furious, but I did not help him because I took orders from him. I helped him, without his consent, because he was right and the facts needed to be brought to the fore. In any other world, where the media operated as an agent against government abuses, Vanderboegh would have been hailed as a hero to the public. Not here and not now.

I would not have bothered with this story by Travis Gettys had it not appeared on the Drudge Report as a legitimate article. Had it not been for that, I would have discounted any such story as just that, fabricated nonsense from the extreme leftist point of view.